PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Comments:Criticize public figures regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don’t attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.

This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Why I Want Gingrich as Our Standard Bearer

This election will be the most important in our lifetimes. It is between becoming a failed Old Europe or a return to our exceptionalism. To date, many Americans have not been paying attention and are therefore clueless. This year however, they are tuning in.

I want Newt, the experienced teacher-politician–the explainer par excellence, to use the bully pulpit a candidate has, to educate. The debates have already allowed him to fly above the liberal media fog. People are seeing who he really is and they like what they see. Before the season is over, they will like what they hear. As the man says “I guarantee it.”

143 comments:

guy faulkes
said...

Newt worries me because he is an establishment Republican politician with a bad policy on illegal aliens. However, he is one of the better Republican establishment politicians. I can support him even though he is wrong on the amnesty issue. We have beat that back three times and can probably do so again.

"Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."-Mike D

Is this where, because you think you have middle-of-the-road true enlightenment, that if others are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers, that they are just petty haters?Who hates gays and Mexicans, you maybe? You support bi-sexuals and Mexicans with expired green cards.

MikeD- Gay marriage would be unequal treatment under the law. That is not prejudice or hate. Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman. Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?Can you fathom that an invasion of illegal aliens may partially be the cause of the fall of our country? Those two things didn't start with this election, they have been going on for years. If our country was not "Right now, we are facing a desperate financial crisis" you might have a point. But it is, and there are many factors in play.

Guy, I am realizing a problem that Jeb Bush is pointing out. We Conservatives have not found a way to talk about this immigration problem without sounding like we are talking against all Hispanics. As you know, I myself have not been careful about this on this blog.

So, my question to you is "Do you have any ideas about how we can talk about illegal immigration and not sound like we are predjudiced against Hispanics so many of whom are our fellow citizens?

This may be one of the more important questions we conservatives have to answer for ourself. Above everything we have to get rid of Obama. He is destroying our country. We may not be able to without our fellow Latino voters.

The reason that people think those that do not support illegal aliens are against Hispanics is because these people are mindless sheep that have brought into the spin produced by the lame stream media. What part of the phrase illegal aliens denotes Hispanics?

I have friends that serve in the Border Patrol. They have caught mid easterners from Iraq, Pakistanis, Orientals from China, Caucasians from Europe, and Russia, and other races and nationalities. These criminals are all illegal aliens and should be deported.

The racists in the equation are those that think all illegal aliens equal Hispanics or that all Hispanics are illegal aliens.

People should get over their prejudice and pay attention. Words have meanings that do not reflect necessarily opinions. This fact needs to be brought to the attention of those racists that equate the illegal immigration problem solely with Hispanics.

Sark, allow me to answer the questions you posed to me which led to my question for you. Then, perhaps, you will find the courage to be honest, rather than defensive, because the truth is that there is prejudice on the right, on the left, and in all shades of the middle. You have prejudices. I have prejudices. We all have prejudices. To not admit such an obvious reality is something only an individual caught in the "Democrat good/Republican bad, Republican good/Democrat bad" partisan paradigm could say with a straight face. So, as to your questions:

"Is this where, because you think you have middle-of-the-road true enlightenment, that if others are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers, that they are just petty haters?" - Sark

No. Absolutely not. And you seem to be confusing a moderate position with a liberal position, understandable given the self-protection mechanisms which are part of a standard political party brainwash. No, among those who "are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers", some have really thought it through and support legal immigration, some are just listening to the logical arguments put forth by a few carefully selected political party entertainment personalities, and some hold a true Texas-swagger style of prejudice, the whole "Don't mess with Texas", "Keep your damn feet off my property" mentality which holds brown and black people inferior at its core. Only you know for sure in which category you truly belong, and I'm not asking you that, because honest or not, you will likely give the same answer. It's part of the partisan demonization game. Present yourself as the good guy at all times.

"Who hates gays and Mexicans, you maybe?" - Sark

Gosh, I certainly hope I don't. I try not to hate anybody. I don't think it's a healthy emotion. And it is tough for me to tell you who hates both gays and Mexicans without making some major generalizations. But, if I had to put forth my very best guess, and try to isolate one particular group of individuals who hates both of those groups, and mind you, this is your idea, not mine... I would have to guess the following group: White, 60+ year old Republican Texas Christian land-owning males. Now, there would be a bunch of individuals within that group who would not hate gays and Mexicans, but I bet that group would provide the highest percentage.

Ok, soooooo, I answered your two questions about as thoroughly and honestly as possible, so how about stepping up and answering mine with something other than return questions and smokescreen accusations against your partisan enemies? Here it is again, Sark:

"Do you believe that prejudice exists?"

"Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it?"

Will you answer? My guess is that you will select a small piece of my post, conveniently leave out the obvious qualifying statements and the part that says this is not in my nature and I'm only doing it because you ask, and you will try to use that small piece to throw up more smokescreens to avoid an honest discussion about prejudice. Preserve the partisan paradigm! Then again, maybe you'll surprise me. There's always a first for everything!

I must say, I think your last comment is as prejudice as any I've read. I believe your misconceptions you so proudly share, are interfering with your reasoning. This may be your problem and causing your inability to commit. You absolutely think that the predominant reasoning behind anti gay marriage and anti illegal immigration is simple bigotry. You have a closed mind about this. No matter what is written, it will not sway your opinion. Questions you might ask yourself is: "Why are there homosexual latinos that are against illegal immigration? Why are there homosexuals against gay marriage? Do Mexicans in Mexico hate all their illegal immigrants from south of their border?

"But, if I had to put forth my very best guess, and try to isolate one particular group of individuals who hates both of those groups, and mind you, this is your idea, not mine... I would have to guess the following group: White, 60+ year old Republican Texas Christian land-owning males. Now, there would be a bunch of individuals within that group who would not hate gays and Mexicans, but I bet that group would provide the highest percentage."-MikeD

And you'd be wrong. Blacks hate Mexicans more than any group. They war against each other, right here in Bayou City. And elsewhere.

Blogger, what defines predjudice these days? Disagreement doesn't equal predjudice. I've got a soft spot for some of the mexicans that are here. I don't apologize for that. It's how I am. I don't want to see families split up. I do want to see our borders secure though, that's not hate...that's the laws we have on the books.

Do we change the border law to become the "compassionate entry border law of the US"? We have laws, either change them or enforce them. It has nothing to do with hate, how much land a person owns or whether you are republican or democrat. Texas seems to be the easy place to cross. Sark lives there, he deals with it everyday. We don't.

We disagree about things, but it doesn't mean we hate anyone. We can hate laws of course, but until they are changed...we need to enforce them.

No matter what Newt, Mitt, Ron Paul, Bachmann, or Santoram say, they will have to deal with closed minds like MikeD and others who thrive on their own prejudices against things they cannot or will not understand.

I love the closed-minded label you slap on me, Sark. Yes, the guy who can find unwanted prejudice in his own thoughts is closed-minded, but the guy who can see prejudice only in the minds of others is open-minded. That makes a lot of sense.

"Don't mess with Texas" - from Wikipedia:

"Beyond its immediate role in reducing litter, the slogan became a Texas cultural phenomenon and the slogan has been popularly appropriated by Texans. Though the slogan is not well known outside of Texas, it appears on countless items of tourist souvenirs, the phrase is actually a federally registered trademark; the department has tried at times to enforce its trademark rights with cease and desist letters, but has had very limited success. The phrase "Don't Mess with Texas" is a frequently cited example of pride in Texas culture."

Sark, I would not use a slogan unless I knew the story behind it. That motto's current meaning is not quite what it was. But of course, you already knew this and just decided not to be intellectually honest, right?

Oh, I see, Sark, you were asking for two different groups. I thought you were asking for one group which displays the greatest hostility toward both gays and Mexicans. But you wanted two different groups. Gotcha!

Ok, here you go. The specific group that shows the greatest hostility toward homosexuals would have to be the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. But I could be wrong about that.

As for prejudice against Mexicans... I am not sure. Maybe Guatemalans? I haven't really researched it. Generally, I try to reduce prejudice, and I typically do so by assembling a diverse group of friends and introducing people to other cultures through friendship, not by spreading blame on others. That is why I am uncomfortable answering your questions. My nature is to discuss subjects philosophically, not to find someone to persecute. This must be one of those horrible "middle-of-the-road" qualities you abhor. ;-)

Liberal insanity... expected from the likes of liberal POV... and now MikeD. Careful, you are spinning out of the middle-of-the-road and crashing headlong into being sissified if a anti-litter campaign slogan scares you. Trust me, you don't hear Texans using that slogan, and so what if they/we did. It has nothing to do with gays or illegals, its all about the highway trash.

Yeah, the nerve that flares up when I read a liberal playing the race card on everything that does not agree with their closed-minded point of view. My prejudice is that the law has already decided it is illegal to be in this country without following the proper immigration laws.

Voters rate Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney evenly when asked which Republican presidential candidate would run strongest against President Obama, but among GOP voters, Gingrich is the clear favorite. Rasmussen Reports

The following groups have been started on Facebook, by Texans, so please don't tell me that the application of "Don't mess with Texas" hasn't changed over time. Remember, these are Texans who have formed these groups:

"I survive Texas summers.. so don't mess with me"

"Don't Mess with Texas Schools"

"Don't Mess With Texas Families"

"Casey Anthony, Don't Mess with Texas"

"Don't mess with me...I'm from TEXAS!"

"Don't Let Bill White Mess with Texas"

"Don't Mess With Texas Homeowners"

"Don't Mess With With People From Texas"

"Don't Mess With Texas Earth Day Festival"

And that's just on Facebook! If you really look, you will find that Texans have adapted that slogan for sports teams, professional organizations, clubs, and many other types of uses. All of the uses have dealt with Texas pride, and very few involve litter. But by all means, keep fabricating your story.

Ok, in spite of the fact that my posts are backed up by factual example, I feel that by repeatedly badgering you about this, I run the risk of violating the site rule "Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly". So I'm going to let it go now, Sark.

If at some point you feel like actually answering my questions, please feel free to do so, and perhaps we can have an honest discussion.

You play the race-card when people don't agree with you and you go to Facebook to prove your point. I think you are right, you need to take a break. Maybe Liberal POV will spam this thread and try and back you up.

Sark, do you not find it telling that Mike D has made not one mention of my post concerning the fact that illegal aliens are comprised of all nationalities and races? His fixation on Hispanics is in itself a form of racism.

Guy Faulkes- MikeD should realize that it is much more than Mexicans scoffing at our laws. But the age old trick of the liberals is to inject racism to stifle discussion. It doesn't work with me. It must have worked for him in the past. Are you surprised MikeD in particular would insult people on this blog by writing: "Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."- MikeD

I did not answer your question because I was waiting for Sark to answer mine. When you ask a question of someone and that person refuses to answer your question while others team up with a barrage of questions in return, it does not make for a fair discussion. I have answered three questions of Sarkazein, and I have asked only two. I have not received answers to those two. Perhaps you are happy to play the gang-up game as well?

I would think that if you read this entire exchange and are inclined to fairness, inserting yourself into the discussion, you might point out to Sark that I answered his questions and cited verifiable facts in my responses, while he obfuscates, dodges, and flat-out ignores my questions. I wonder why you pile on instead of playing fair?

I am not asking you to come to my defense. I have never asked for that. In fact, on WW I have somewhat rudely declined your assistance, but only because I wanted to discuss individual issues philosophically, and not get dragged into a robotic partisan debate. I am happy to answer your questions, and I think you and I can have a civil, intellectual discussion. If Sark will agree to let down his guard for a little while, we can all have an honest conversation about illegal immigration, gay rights, and what the thread is about, Newt Gingrich!

So, Sark answers my questions and I'll be happy to answer yours, but I'm not playing the gang-up / shout-down game. Fair is fair. Talk to your boy.

MikeD plese quit acting like the dolt. Of course prejudice exists (with SOME people on any topic - NOT EVERYONE or even a majority). Take for instance your prejudice on enforcing the rule of law in the matter of illegal immigration and your refusal to acknowledge that supporting this is not racial. Illegal aliens come in all races. Sark has answered you.

As to defending you on Watauga Watch, it must have been some time ago as I no longer go there. It is not relevant to anything as only one side of the debate is allowed to be posted. In any event, I was not defending you. I do not defend personalities as a general view. I agree or disagree with ideas and opinions. In this case I completed agree with the Anonymous poster that has previously made this point. One responds to a statement, not a name.

"Of course prejudice exists (with SOME people on any topic - NOT EVERYONE or even a majority)."

Guy, thank you! It seems so obvious that I can only speculate as to why Sark would be so opposed to admitting something so simple.

The truth is that liberal policies do terrible things to minorities, using and abusing and taking them for granted. But at the same time, racist jokes about hiding welfare checks in people's work boots and the like are clearly passed along by conservatives. Sark's inability to admit that prejudice exists on his side of the fence defies simple reality.

To discuss illegal immigration without discussing Mexico as the primary reason for the discussion and the need for legislation would be to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room with you.

From Forbes.com:

"The U.S. also shares a long, wide-open border with Canada, and almost no one is seriously talking about building a fence across our northern border—because massive numbers of Canadians aren’t crossing it illegally."

For a second there, I thought you and Guy had formed a political correctness thought police squad. I mean, if one cannot comment that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in America are Mexican, what is next? Is it also not ok to say that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim?

MikeD, You are the party that first aimed the discussion at Mexicans and Hispanics while never once mentioning or acknowledging that illegal aliens are also of other nationalities and races. You called people that support enforcing immigration law racist, as a matter of fact.

No one but you has limited the immigration problem to Mexicans. Gingrich has not as he would give amnesty to any of them.

"Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman. Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?" - Sark (December 11, 2011 12:10 PM)

Sark has already validated my claim, my concern. The reason I am supporting Newt is that the economy is the most important issue right now. We need to get unemployment under control. We need to incentivize businesses to start investing in our future, and we need to dramatically reduce government spending.

Eventually, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be used to prevent Sark from discriminating against homosexuals and blaming the downfall of society on them.

But for now, maybe Republicans could try to focus on the real issue at hand. I believe Gingrich will do just that.

MikeD- Discrimination would come when others wanting to marry, but unable to pass the gay test or are not gay, would not be permitted to marry. For example-- partners in crime, asexuals wanting to marry for benefits, brothers or brothers and sisters, or sisters, etc. To not "discriminate", marriage would have to be permitted for everyone... then everything... then people to their animals. So don't use discrimination BS unless your are willing to allow marriage between anybody and anything.

Now I understand where the gay issue came from...I was confused about the comments.

I still have a sense someone else is going to come forward to run for office. I just don't think the conservatives are satisfied with the choices. Independents are not supporting Newt...that worries me.

Your political party is the one that freed black people from slavery. Your political party is the one that made support of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause a prerequisite for Confederate States to reenter the United States. Now you no longer want to expand freedom and Equal Protection. I suppose the 14th Amendment is turning into your Frankenstein monster.

There are a lot of people who are homosexual. There are very few people who have sex with their sisters or their dogs. Do you think that gay marriage is some kind of gateway drug or something? What is the source of your concern? Is it the Bible? Perhaps you should look to the Bible itself if you want some real, 'righteous' perversion. There's a 'Lot' of it, you know? ;-)

MikeD- Back in the early 1900's when gays were taken from their San Francisco homeland and sold to florist shops, landscape design firms, hair salons, NFL football teams, and kept from being educated, beaten by their 60+ year old white Texas heterosexual land owners, it was definitely a scar on our American History.

Now that I know (from your comment) that gays are not having sex and are holding off 'til marriage, I will try and show more sympathy.

You definitely project your prejudices and bigotries on others. This has to screw up your thought process.

Equal protection under the law is what we have now (marriage). If it changes to same sex marriage if you are gay, then it is no longer equal protection under the law. You can't marry another man, I can't marry another man= equal. If you can marry another man because you are gay, and I can't because I am not= NOT equal.

I think it's funny that the politically correct police would call me a racist for daring to say that the illegal immigration issue has everything to do with Mexicans, then Sark breaks it down into only two groups, "Mexicans" and "OTM (Other than Mexicans)". That, in and of itself, ought to show that the issue is only a big deal because of the overwhelming number of Mexicans living here illegally.

But just in case that is not enough, here are the real numbers:

Total illegal immigrants in the USA = 23,787,000Illegals from somewhere other than Mexico = 615,000

Does the PCPD have an abacus that counts millions?

You might like to check out this site, as it contains running counters on all kinds of illegal immigrant statistics.

If Lib isn't posting (or, more likely, is being censored) then he is arguing with me. If I'm not posting, then he's arguing with Mike D. If he's not posting, he continues arguing (a little bit ago, only the "regulars" were posting and he picked a fight with Guy).

I'm sure a psychologist would have something interesting to say about that behavior.

So Jack, you would just bend-over and take it when someone says- ""Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."-Mike D? You may be OK with someone projecting their own bigotry on you, but I am not. Jack, have you checked out the Rodney King Can't We All Just Get Along Blog?

Here is why I brought it up. Where I live, and in many states across the country, 2010 brought a landslide victory in state legislatures for Republicans. All across the country, legislatures that have been controlled for decades by Democrats were handed to Republicans. In case this is not making sense to you, that means millions of voters switched their votes from previous elections and supported Republicans.

The Republicans were handed majorities, not because the public has been hoping to deny gay marriage, and the Democrats were not getting the job done. The Republicans were not handed a majority because the voters feel that voter fraud has been affecting elections. The Republicans were not handed a majority because the people want to deport all Mexicans.

No, Republicans were handed a majority by voters who are willing to change their votes based on what the times call for, and in this particular case, the voters revolted against Obama's economic policies and his government intrusion into the lives of citizens.

How your party has handled their gift has been moronic. Rather than seizing the opportunity and focusing on the wishes of the voters, building the trust of voters and solidifying their support for the long term, the Republican legislatures have instead decided this is their big chance to push through unpopular, reactionary social policies. This is the stupidest political move I have ever seen. Instead of solidifying a majority that could last for decades, instead of working to give me hope for a better future as a citizen of a country teetering on insolvency, they have instead decided to cut their majority short at two years, and cram Bible down the throats of swing voters for their short stint in charge.

The thing is, I was pulling for them. I was hopeful. I believed that they were going to work for me. Yeah, I knew that their social policies might slowly be implemented over time, but only after their fiscal policies showed their worth.

But they just couldn't keep it in their pants, could they? And now, in NC, their approval rating has submarined. To add insult to injury, redistricting, which could have been done in a manner which showed honor, reason, fairness, and sensibility, has once again been done in a manner which demonstrates clearly partisan decision-making. When your redistricting makes districts look like giant squid, voters understand that you cannot win on the substance of your platform, so you must resort to cheating.

Please tell me why the Republican party did not decide to handle their mandate responsibly? Why did they spend all their political capital in less than two years? Why are they about to flame out?

"Please tell me why the Republican party did not decide to handle their mandate responsibly? Why did they spend all their political capital in less than two years? Why are they about to flame out?"-MikeD

Because they hate Mexicans and gays, of course.

MikeD- I am not real sure how a State legislature can stop wasteful spending in Washington, nor do I know how State legislatures and stop Obamacare. I will disagree with the part of your comment saying the public did not elect Republicans to deny gays the right to marriage. The majority of people in the US have Conservative tendencies. The majority have great pride in their country. Obama, surrounded by low rent liberals from academia, said they were to "fundamentally" change America. Most are placing their votes, both nationally and locally, to STOP the attempted "change". Gay marriage may only be a small part of it, and most don't give it much of a thought, but most Americans do not think their pride in their country needs fundamental change. So the Leftists got waxed for it.If you think Gerrymandering is new to the Republican party, I've got history for you. What do you think your Democrat buddies were doing for the entire time they were in power? How do think people like Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackass Lee, and others stayed in Office?

MikeD- I can tell you this, if the Republican controlled legislatures do not cut out wasteful spending and if they don't stop the extremist liberals from further decaying our society, they will lose in elections to came.They won't get my support if they fail at the mandate I think they were given. MikeD- I may be wrong, but your last comment seems to say that Republicans have not been liberal enough for you.

You can choose to not accept it and it will still occur. The economy absolutely can be fixed at a local and state level. States should be leading the way, setting the example for the federal government. Do you just want a central government to fix everything for you?

George Orwells 1984. 2+2=5. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Or at times a man and as many woman as he could afford. But for all practical purposes, between a man and a woman. It is the definition of marriage in the dictionary and in history and on the code book. To be forced by law to say different, to me, is the same as being forced to say 2+2=5. If you will note, in spite of your misconception, at no time did I quote the Bible in this comment or previous ones on this thread.

You didn't have to quote the Bible. You called same-sex marriage the "fall of our country". Are you saying that is not a position derived directly from the Bible?

I don't get your point about Orwell. Before Abolition, slavery was always legal, yet times changed and society advanced to a greater understanding of freedom and equality. Before Women's Suffrage, women could never vote, yet times changed and society advanced to a greater understanding of freedom and equality. These changes happened on a Constitutional level.

Each successive generation sheds more of the prejudices of the previous generation. That is to say, although I certainly do still unfortunately carry around some prejudices of my own, I never saw black people being forced to sit in the back of the bus, go to different schools, and drink out of different water fountains. You, on the other hand, probably witnessed that and considered it normal; thus you justified that prejudice in your own mind. I never had to do that, so to me, the idea of it is preposterous.

Twenty years from now, this will all be academic, a matter of historical record, and your position will have been roundly rejected by the courts. But accepting equality will be difficult for you, I know, so you will have to hide in your house and rant about the horrible liberal courts. This is the only way you will be able to hang on to your prejudice. If you speak publicly of it, everyone will recognize it for what it is, as I do here.

It is interesting that MikeD has been reduced to the personal attack of calling those that brought to lgiht the fact that illegal immigrations has nothing to do with Mexico but only to do with those of all nationalities and races that illegally enter the country the politically correct police. He cannot refute this.

It is of no consequence that the majority of these criminals cross our southern border. They are not all Mexicans as they come from all over South America as well as they rest of the globe.

Even if they are all Mexican Hispanics, it does not change the fact they are criminals that have broken the rule of law. They are a large portion of our economic woes due to the drain they place on our resources and the jobs they steal.

I just have to give up on you MikeD. You have no freaking idea what I have seen and what I have thought about it when it comes to segregation. You have only your prejudice and misconceptions. I can't change those, you are stuck with them. To compare other events in history, like slavery, to whether or not gays can be husband and wife under the law, is mindless. Maybe someday gays will be given the right to vote, who knows.

You didn't have to quote the Bible. You called same-sex marriage the "fall of our country"."

Which Bible are you reading? And re-read my comment.Now you even lie like an extremist liberal.

I wrote-"Gay marriage would be unequal treatment under the law. That is not prejudice or hate. Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman. Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?"

"You can't marry another man, I can't marry another man= equal. If you can marry another man because you are gay, and I can't because I am not= NOT equal."

Logically, that makes absolutely zero sense unless you are looking at the situation through the discriminatory filter of your own prejudice. Who says you couldn't marry another man, Sark? There are plenty of homosexuals in our society who marry members of the opposite sex.

You could marry another man and live the rest of your life as a closeted heterosexual. :-)

I can't even understand the thought process which would lead you to believe that offering individuals the right to marry a same-sex partner would give someone a right that you would not have. Just because you would choose not to take advantage of that right doesn't mean you would not have it. Bizarre.

Equal treatment under the law is not supposed to consider gender, age, race, nationality, religion, economic status, ...but oh yeah... sexual preference OK that's in a class all its own so do what you thinks best.

MikeD- I have no idea what you are talking about...."escape the trap". Let's just agree that you think gays should have special rights and I don't.

For someone who said gay marriage and illegal aliens is not important and we should concentrate on the financial crisis is an untrue statement. Gay marriage is of extreme importance to you. Can I suggest you settle for a civil union or a POA and/or a living will as the law says a marriage is between a man and a woman.

What would be wrong with civil unions is the same as allowing black people on the bus, but making them sit in the back. It's not equality. It's 'discrimination light'. If you are going to eliminate inequality, you don't do it by keeping it in place but lessening the degree... unless you are a total wuss. If you are brave, you eliminate it completely.

It is only an important issue because Republicans who were supposed to be working on fixing the economy have been focused instead on alienating the swing voters who gave them their majorities. I don't think you understand how elections are won at all. Your vote never varies, Sark. You don't swing elections. Groups with names like "Reagan Democrats" swing elections.

I hoped that this current batch would deliver for the swing voters who put them there. I had high hopes, but I have been disappointed.

You approve of their abuse of the will of the voters. Therefore, I have a problem with you, Sark. You are locked into the partisan game, and we are all getting screwed by you and those Democrats who are also playing your game. You sing your tune like a robotic apparatchik, screaming the party line.

I can't believe you have been talked into being anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-equality. I don't care how old you are. You totally suck, Sark.

Let's admit it, gay marriage is an attempt to gain acceptance of the gay lifestyle, to make homosexuality mainstream. That's fine, but don't lie and use the equality under the law and discrimination thing. Don't lie and say gay partners can't get the same legal rights to visit in the hospital and have joint accounts etc. ...its just not true. Its all about using the government and its laws to force acceptance of the gay life style on others. Your last comment, first paragraph, alludes to this.

"I can't believe you have been talked into being anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-equality. I don't care how old you are. You totally suck, Sark."- MikeD

If I was trying to lobby for laws to ban homosexuality, take their voting rights away, not allow them out on Halloween, flog them into liking girls and vice-versa, confiscate or ban their newspapers and websites, you might have a point. But I'm not. So I don't totally suck.

MikeD- " In the Montrose area of Houston, Bruce Alante' defied the law and sat in the front of the Metro bus last week, so progress is in the making. Also the mayor of Houston, Annice Parker, was allowed to sit in front of the bus or in back of the limo or where ever she wanted. Free at last-- free at last!

"Sark,What would be wrong with civil unions is the same as allowing black people on the bus, but making them sit in the back."- MikeD.

Once again MikeD resorts to personal attacks on Sark. This is an indication that Mike has lost the debate in his own mind, just as he gave up on the fact that illegal aliens are not just Mexicans after making personal attacks because he had no rebuttal.

MikeD, please argue the issue and do not make personal attacks.

I know you only answer those that have a distinct blog name. Is this solely for the purpose of being able to personally attack these people instead of the issue?

This is beneath you. You certainly have the ability to stand up for what you believe without doing this.

You are absolutely right, Sark. Eliminating prejudice is a noble goal. It sounds like you think that by not advocating lynchings, you are somehow not prejudiced. What you are saying, in other words, is: "Hey, I'm not trying to outlaw their lifestyle, I just think giving them the rights everyone else has will validate them as human beings, and I don't want that!"

MikeD- As this gay marriage topic seems to be of the utmost importance to you, I suggest you Google: 'gays against gay marriage'. This way you can get others opinions. There are many and varied opinions, but they are agin' it.

I googled what Sark suggested, but I was unable to determine which essay was the one he referenced as his own, and since he specifically directed me to his and even gave me instructions as to how I should receive his satire, I thought that perhaps he would provide a direct link. This is being obtuse? That search returns 5.7 million results. I think asking for a little better direction is fairly reasonable.

Sarkazein said...MikeD- As this gay marriage topic seems to be of the utmost importance to you, I suggest you Google: 'gays against gay marriage'. This way you can get others opinions. There are many and varied opinions, but they are agin' it.

Gingrich is a RINO who loves illegal aliens. Like Perry, he has no chance with Tea Party types like me. Obama will see another term folks - the Republitards have sold themselves as meely mouthed, fence sitting liberals (like George Bush) who will turn on their own kind in an instant. Bachman and Paul get my write in vote.

I deleted my comment above because after re-reading Anonymous's comment about writing in Bachman and Paul, it is possible he wasn't thinking he could vote twice. He may have meant Bachman for Pres and Paul for Veep. On a write-in vote can you and the other 27 people pick both President and VP?

I got a three-way tie between Gingrich, Romney, and Bachmann. But I don't agree with the wording of some of the answers. Plus, it doesn't weight the importance of particular questions/answers in your decision making process.

Agreeing with Mike D here.....These little excersizes can be fun, but they aren't really helpful. They never seem to allow for multiple answers - nor do they priortize the issues. In some cases, one or two issues can trump all the rest.

My results show Ron Paul as my candidate. I don't disagree with this as far as it goes but I couldn't support Paul because I don't think his foreign policy and his stance on defense is something I could live with. Sometimes one just has to compromise on some issues.

Not sure who the quote is from, but someone once said that you can't compare a candidate to the almighty, you have to compare him to the alternatives!

For too long leftist judges have been using the bench not to administer the law but to make it. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to impeach judges and it has abrogated it's authority in this for too long.

In a straw poll taken among 23,000 Tea Party enthusiasts organized by the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation’s biggest Tea Party organizations, had Gingrich winning with with 31 percent of their vote, registered in a conference call on Sunday night.

Blogger- I saw the Newt/Tea Party poll. I am not sure how the "Tea Party" pollees were identified. But, Newt did come out strong Tea Party at the beginning and has remained a strong Tea Party'er. Romney not so much. But no one has been more Tea Party'er than Bachman.

MikeD- I will probably flop-flip five or six more times before the primary is over. I have never written that I was for or against Romney in the primary. When it comes to the general election, I would vote for a tree stump before I would ever vote for Obama. So all the Republican candidates are safe with me. I would even vote for Paul if the other choice was Obama.

Wrong MikeD. I wrote only about Romney vs Obama, not support in the primary. You wrote that you would vote for Obama if he was against Romney. I believe you stand alone on that one as a recently outed liberal. I will repeat, just for you, I would vote for Romney over Obama any day, any time.

Political partisanship is so important to you that you would rather have the country ruined by a stampeding RINO with a blank check and a Congress with a rubber stamp than share power in a gridlock which produces limited spending, a balanced budget, and virtually no new freedoms taken away.

Honestly, you can call me a liberal all you want. I know what I support, and I know what you support. I know who I care about, and I know who you care about.

I am not voting for Mitt Romney, and there are a lot of others who aren't either, so maybe your time could be better spent supporting an electable candidate, rather than trying to sanitize your peers for their independent thought.

MikeD- I'll make it easier for you-- I am Antiobamapartisan. I am Anybodybutobamasan.

Do you realize we have the AG of the United States saying that racism is the reason so many are calling for his firing? He also said Obama's problems are caused by racism. These morons are begging for civil unrest.You may be too young to have witnessed it first hand. I have, and there is no sense to it. This is only ONE of the reasons Obama and his henchmen have to be removed from Office. Obama could not have been elected if Whites had not voted for him. Now he has turned on them just like JFK turned on the Mafia after they stole the election for him.

MikeD. I am not sure if you know who you support and who Sark supports. Wantign illegal aliens deported and the country to follow the rule of law does not make Sark a racist, but your assertion his concern is solely for Hispanics does make you one, at least in my opinion. Your White Christmas jab is a case in point.

Guy Faulkes- The only candidate I had supported in the primary, so far, was Cain. The rest remaining are still head and shoulders above Obama. Mike D's "White Christmas" comment is typical of a hardcore liberal as are his projected bigotries.